इह स्मृतिकाले सुस्मूर्षितो ऽर्थो भवतु , ध्वंसतां वा ---- इति किन्तेन(क्स्स्: किमनेन) , अनुभवस्तावत् ध्वस्तः ---- इत्यत्र सर्वस्य अविवादः , तमेव च अनुरुन्धाना स्मृतिर्जायते । तथा हि ---- स्मृतौ न अर्थस्य प्रकाशः , न अध्यवसायः , नापि अनुभवस्य अर्थस्य च अङ्गुलिद्वयवत् , नापि अनुभवविशिष्टस्य अर्थस्य दण्डिवत् , सर्वत्र अयम् ---- इति प्रत्ययप्रसङ्गात् ; किंतु अनुभवप्रकाश एव स्मृतौ प्रधानम् , अनुभवस्य तु अर्थप्रकाशात्मकत्वात् अनुभवप्रकाशनान्तरीयको ऽर्थावभासः इति । सर्वथा यदि अनुभवो ध्वस्तः , तदा तत्प्रकाशरूपा कथं स्मृतिस्तद्द्वारेण अर्थविषया स्यात् , तया च सर्वो व्यवहारः क्रियमाणो दृष्टः इत्यसौ स्वरूपेण अनपह्नवनीया सती अनुभवस्य नाशे किंचित् अविनष्टम् आवेदयति । तदेव च अनुभवकर्तृ ---- अनुभवितृरूपम् , आत्मा अनुभावको नित्यः ---- इति । इयदेव च आत्मसिद्धेर्जीवितम् । तत्तु न अधिकम् इहैव उन्मीलितम् आचार्येण , वक्तव्यशेषविवक्षया पूर्वपक्षो मा तावत् समापत् इत्याशयेन । कथं भवेत् इति । अर्ह्तस्तावत् तस्याम् अकिंचित्करः , अनुभवश्च ध्वस्तः इति न केनचित्प्रकारेण स्मृतिः स्यात् , तदभावे च संकेतशब्दस्मृत्यायत्ता अपि अस्तङ्गताः सर्वे विकल्पाः , निर्विकल्पं च अन्धबधिरमूकप्रायम् इति हन्त निराक्रन्दम् अवसीदेत् विश्वम् ---- इति ॥३॥
इह कार्यातिरेकेण तादृक् कल्पनीयं यत् कार्यसिद्धये पर्याप्नोति , न चैवम् आत्मा , अर्थो हि तावत् स्मर्यते , स च अनुभवप्रकाशमुखेन , अनुभवश्च ध्वस्तः ---- इत्युक्तम् ; यदि आत्मा कश्चिदस्ति , किं तेन । एतदपि हि वक्तव्यम् ---- आकाशमपि अस्ति ---- इति । अथ उच्यते ---- न केवलेन आत्मना एतत् सिद्ध्यति , अपि तु अनुभवसंस्कारो ऽपि अत्र उपयोगी ---- इति , तर्हि स एवास्तु , किम् अनेन ? ---- तदेतत् दर्शयति
सत्याप्यात्मनि दृङ्नाशात्तद्द्वारा दृष्टवस्तुषु ।
स्मृतिः केनाथ यत्रैवानुभवस्तत्पदैव सा ॥ §०§
दृष्टेषु अनुभूतेषु वस्तुषु या स्मृतिः तस्याम् अनुभवो दृगात्मा द्वारम् अर्थाशस्पर्शे , स च सत्यप्य् आत्मनि नष्टोऽनुभवः , तस्य हि अनाशे इदम् ---- इत्येष एव अत्रुटितः प्रकाशः इति का स्मृतिः , तदनुभविता किं स्मृतेः कुर्यात् ---- इति ।
यत्रैव विषये अनुभवो वृत्तः तदेव तस्याः स्मृतेः पदं स्मर्यमाणम् । तत्पदा ---- इति बहुव्रीहिः , सा इति स्मृतिः ॥४॥
ननु ज्ञानान्तरस्य विषयेण कथं तस्याः विषयित्वाभिमानः ---- इत्याशङ्क्याह
यतो हि पूर्वानुभवसंस्कारात्स्मृतिसंभवः ।
यद्येवमन्तर्गडुना कोऽर्थः स्यात्स्थायिनात्मना ॥ §१§
अनुभवेन हि संस्कारो जन्यते स्वोचितः , संस्कारश्च प्रातनरूपां स्थितिं स्थापयति , आकृष्टशाखादेश्चिरसंवर्तितस्य विवर्त्यमानस्य भूर्जादेः । तेन अत्रापि संस्कारः तां स्मृतिं पूर्वानुभवानुकारिणीं करोति ---- इति तद्विषय एव स्मृतेर्विषयः ।
In plain words
Here, let the object one wishes to remember exist at the time of memory, or let it perish: what does that matter? That the experience, at least, has been destroyed, no one disputes; and memory arises conforming to that very experience. Consider: in memory there is no of the object, nor any ascertaining of it; nor is there a of the experience and the object side by side, like two fingers; nor of the object as qualified by the experience, like a man with a staff; for in every case the awareness “this” would follow. Rather, in memory it is the of the experience that is chief; and because experience consists in the of the object, the appearance of the object comes inseparably with the shining of the experience. In any case, if the experience has been destroyed, how could memory, which is the of it, have the object for its content by way of it? And all dealings are seen to be carried on by memory; so memory, which cannot be denied as it is, makes known that when experience is destroyed something is not destroyed. And that alone is the doer of the experience, the one who experiences: so the , the one who experiences, is permanent. This much is the whole life of the proof of the . But the master has not opened this out any further right here, meaning to say what is left to be said, and with this in mind: “Let the not close just yet.” “How could it come about”: the object, for its part, does nothing towards memory, and the experience has been destroyed; so memory could not come about in any way. And without it every too, all of which depend on remembering the convention and the word, would have set; and what is free of is all but blind, deaf and mute. So, alas, the universe would sink down with no one to cry out to.
Here, over and above the effect, one should posit such a thing as suffices to bring the effect about; and the is not like that. For it is the object that is remembered, and that by way of the of the experience; and the experience, as has been said, is destroyed. If there is some , what of it? For this too would have to be said: “Space exists as well.” But if it is said, “This is not brought about by the alone; rather the of the experience is of use here too”, then let that alone be enough: what need is there of the ? That is what he shows:
Even if there is an , since the seeing has perished, by what, then, could there be memory of things seen, a memory whose door is that seeing? It has its place just where the experience was.
In the memory of things “seen”, that is, experienced, experience, which is seeing, is the door to touching the object; and that experience, even if there is an , has perished. For were it not to perish, there would be just this unbroken , “this”; so what memory would there be? What could the one who experienced it do for memory?
“Just where the experience was”: the content on which the experience took place, that alone is the place of that memory, what is remembered. “Tatpadā” is a possessive compound, and “it” is memory.
With the doubt in view, “But how can memory claim to have for its content the content of another act of knowing?”, he says:
For since memory arises from the of an earlier experience, if that is so, what use would there be in an abiding , a goitre within?
For experience produces a fitted to itself, and a sets up again a state in its earlier form, as it does for a branch pulled back and the like, or for birch bark and the like that has long been rolled up and is being unrolled. So here too the makes that memory copy the earlier experience; and so the content of memory is the content of that experience itself.